New Ruskin
Lecture Notes: August '04
Catalog of Courses
Intel Operations:
Psy Ops
Lecture Hall
Lecture Notes 2016
Lecture Notes 2015
Lecture Notes 2014
Lecture Notes 2013
Lecture Notes 2012
Lecture Notes: July 2008 - June 2010
Lecture Notes: May 07 - June 08
Lecture Notes: Oct. '05- April '07
Lecture Notes: September '05
Lecture Notes: August '05
Lecture Notes: July '05
Lecture Notes: June '05
Lecture Notes: May '05
Lecture Notes: April '05
Lecture Notes: March '05
Lecture Notes: January & February '05
Lecture Notes: December '04
Lecture Notes: November '04
Lecture Notes: October '04
Lecture Notes: September '04
Lecture Notes: August '04
Lecture Notes: July '04
Lecture Notes: June '04
Lecture Notes: May '04
Lecture Notes: April '04
Imus Protests April 2004
Last Will & Testament
Funeral Procession
Baghdad Claims Office: How I would settle Iraqi Prisoner Claims.
Top 40
Metaphysics 303
Who Killed Duane Garrett: Part II
This is what is Wrong with the Republican Party. Part I & Part II
A Public Letter to Rosie Allen
A Public Appeal to Governor Davis
How Don and Mike Removed the Evil One From MSNBC
Who Killed Duane Garrett? 3 Suspects: Motive Greed & Power
McGurk Tutorial
45 minutes and the Distortions of History
Don Imus Says Good Morning
Judgment Day
COPYRIGHT 2004, by

New Ruskin College Lecture  Hall:

History’s judgment rendered today!

Lecture Notes:  08-25-04




"My duty, as I understand it, is to be a president and commander in chief who finds the truth and tells the truth instead of misleading the American people," Kerry said to several hundred supporters . . . "My duty is to be a president who tells the truth instead of hiding behind front groups, saying anything and doing anything to avoid the real issues that matter like jobs, health care and the war in Iraq."  ---SFC 08-24-04


Mendacity.  He impresses by his utter lack of honesty. 


His own repeated questioning of President Bush’s service in the National Guard, his close and well documented relationship with and other front groups, his acceptance of Senator Kennedy’s baseless charge that the President perpetrated a “fraud,” conducted as the youngest brother of the slain President said, “in Texas,” (a claim that Senator Kennedy has not repeated, though he has not retracted or apologized for his  melodramatic buffoonery), his use of his wife’s fortune to finance front groups, including anarchist groups set on disrupting the peace of New York,  three years on, all of this, to say nothing of his more ancient lies, (he has just admitted that his first Purple Heart was not warranted, we await his revelations about the other two), and irresponsible acts, (Paris?  Two times!), all of this, is a record of lies and hypocrisy, not seen since the last Democrat presidential candidate Albert Gore, whose mendacity he now today surpasses.  


And as for our nation?


News Item:  Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Two airplanes crashed in separate incidents in southern and central Russia, Agence France-Presse reported, citing Russian news agencies.


Tighten your seatbelts there is turbulence ahead.


As of this date cargo is allowed on American passenger jets without screening for explosives.  Senator Boxer supports an anti-missile defense system for jets but does not require the cargo holds to be subjected to the same scrutiny as the passenger’s checked bags. Which is more dangerous?  Luggage, checked in by a passenger on the plane, or the package in the hold sent my an anonymous person?  


In other words she would defend the jet setting upper classes, (at the expense of the average American tax payer shlub), at the cost of millions of dollars, against anti aircraft missiles, which themselves are difficult to obtain, and require much training, (as al Qaeda learned in Africa when it attempted to down an Israeli airliner);  but as for the simple to make package bomb, with a three way detonator, (timer, cell phone command detonator, and altimeter), connected to 35 pounds of high explosives and 10 pounds of inflammable chemicals, we are left defenseless. 


Are these not yet a continuation of the corruption we have been describing?


Is this not the nation of Billy Clinton and Mrs. Billy Clinton?  Marc Rich?  Did Mrs. Billy Clinton’s brother ever return the pardon fee’s he collected?  Did Billy Clinton’s brother?  Have you forgotten the pilfering of the White House furnishings?  Or the “gifts” (graft) from the “friends of  . . .” in violation of Senate Rules (if given just a few days later).  The use of the IRS to harasse political opponents?  (Note that the Bush administration has itself made no effort to investigate any of this.)  Corruption!


The 9-11 Commission concluded that Billy Clinton “misspoke” when he said he had been offered Osama Bin Laden.  Misspoke?  We have the testimony of the emissary who arranged the offer. Recall that this is the same group who claimed there was “no collaborative” relationship with al Qaeda.  Why characterize it in the negative?  Why not describe what they did discover?  What was the relationship?  Corruption!


Bill O’Reilly repeatedly accuses the Swift Boat Veterans of “smearing” Kerry.  Yet time and again the statements of the Veterans have been confirmed.  Even now Kerry himself acknowledges that the first Purple Heart was not warranted.  Cambodia?  Kerry admits it was not as he has repeatedly described it.  Or the action for which he received the Bronze Star was, again he has admitted, not as he has repeatedly described those events either, in any of the various ways he has described them.  These are all is admissions thus far.


Yet O’Reilly continues to accuse the Swift Boat Veterans of “smearing” Kerry not withstanding Kerry’s own admissions.  The other statements made by the Swift Boat Veterans, the ones Kerry has not yet admitted, are not impossible, irresponsible, groundless, without documentation, distortions in furtherance of some ulterior motive:  i.e. a “smear.” 


In other words even if they continue to be disputed, it is not fair to call them a smear. 


Why then does O’Reilly persist?  Because Kerry is a high status person, and the Veterans are low status.  Kerry lives in palaces, a member of the Senate, with ready access to money, power, and most importantly in O’Reilly’s eyes, the Media.  The Veterans are middle class folks.  Who are they to criticize their betters?

For a time O’Reilly defended Michael Weiner against charges made here at this web site.  At one point even saying that he had “never heard Michael Savage tell a lie.”  Why?  Because O’Reilly regarded Weiner as a fellow member of the media elite, like O’Reilly himself, and thought it wrong that someone with just a web site should be allowed to report the truth.


(Of course, Weiner is insane, so he has responded to O’Reilly’s kindnesses with taunts about “the drunken Irish,” and most recently accusing O’Reilly of cowering away from his show because he wanted to duck the Swift Boat controversy.   Which, by the way O’Reilly, is further confirmation and proof of what I have been reporting about Weiner.)       


But what is this?  O’Reilly?  Is  not O’Reilly’s repeated accusation that the Swift Boat Veterans are “smearing” Kerry not another example of corruption?  Because we were not present we must rely on the evidence of those who were.  And because we are not ourselves combat veterans we are unable to evaluate how these reports could be judged.  For all of this we require the advise of those with experience in these matters.  But this is just the point.  The Swift Boat Veterans are exactly the ones whose experiences allow them to make informed judgments. 


We are, of course, entitled to decide for ourselves what weight to give these issues in casting our votes.  The Veteran’s views are not controlling.  Yet we ought not smear them with O’Reilly’s baseless accusation that they are “smearing” Kerry.  It seems in fact that they are telling the truth.  But even worse than the repeated accusation that the Swift Boat Veterans are “smearing” Kerry, is O’Reilly’s claim that “what happened in Vietnam does not matter.”  As civilians we are fully able to see the utter corruption of this statement. 


After so much suffering and grief, to say that it “does not matter” is despicable, and betrays a corruption more profound than any we have thus far cataloged.  Then just when you think we have reached the lowest depth of American Corruption we have this from Kerry himself:


KERRY: "Why are all these swift boat guys opposed to me?"

BRANT: "You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there."

[Brant had two men killed in battle.]

KERRY: "When we dedicated swift boat one in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn't talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."     

                                                          ---- DRUDGE


"I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."  Oh, villain,   "all the rest!" corruption! 


Kerry, and Kennedy, Boxer, Clinton, Mrs. Billy Clinton, Weiner, O’Reilly, looking out for . . . who?  Themselves?  Is this not exactly the corruption of oligarchy?


And our nation?  Is our nation not put at risk by this corrupt oligarchy?


Is this not exactly what you would expect from a corrupt oligarchy?


Or is the corruption now so complete that even you, are so corrupted that you can not see the corruption? 



For Immediate Release


Tuesday, August 24, 2004



Campaign Says May Have Been Self-Inflicted


Washington—In a reversal of their staunch defense of John Kerry's military service record, Kerry campaign officials were quoted by Fox News saying that it was indeed possible that John Kerry's first Purple Heart commendation was the result of an, unintentional, self-inflicted wound."

"GARRETT: And questions keep coming. For example, Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2, 1968. But in Kerry's own journal written nine days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, "hadn't been shot at yet," unquote. Kerry's campaign has said it is possible this first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentional self-inflicted wound -- Brit." (Special Report with Brit Hume Aug.23, 2004)


A recent television ad from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth featured Doctor Louis Letson who treated Kerry for his minor injury and Grant Hibbard who served as John Kerry's direct commander on the mission where he claimed his medal. Both men say Kerry did not deserve the medal given the fact that Kerry received a very minor wound requiring no more than band-aid treatment and because the wound was not a direct result of hostile fire, a requirement for a Purple Heart commendation.


"When Grant Hibbard and Doctor Letson appeared in our ad, they were attacked and vilified by the Kerry campaign but now we see news reports saying the Kerry campaign is now sheepishly acknowledging that what we said was true," said Admiral Hoffmann, founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. "John Kerry's own journal reinforces the fact that neither Kerry nor his crew had seen hostile enemy action. John Kerry's first Purple Heart medal is based on fiction."


Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is calling on the Kerry campaign to apologize to Grant Hibbard and Doctor Letson as the men did nothing more than come forward to speak the truth about the situation involving John Kerry's first Purple Heart medal.


This is not the only incident in which Kerry campaign officials have changed their story concerning Kerry's prestigious war medals. The incident on the Bay Hap River in which Kerry received his third Purple Heart and Bronze Star has also been the subject of considerable waffling by Kerry officials. 


During the Democratic National Convention, Kerry used the Bay Hap River incident to suggest that he alone returned to rescue Jim Rassmann—a Special Forces solider—who was on Kerry's boat and was tossed into the river.  Kerry described this incident to the American people as "No man left behind."

However Kerry officials were forced to acknowledge that Kerry's boat actually left the scene when another swift boat—operating on the other side of the river—was damaged by an underwater mine.  Kerry officials now admit that Kerry's boat returned after several minutes to pull Rassmann from the water while three other swift boats remained on site to render assistance to the injured crew of the one damaged boat.  Campaign officials once claimed that Kerry returned to the scene under withering hostile fire to rescue Rassmann after all the other swift boats left.  But other accounts from eyewitnesses of that day confirm that the other boats stayed on site and that Kerry returned to the scene, facing no enemy fire, only seconds before another swift boat was preparing to retrieve Mr. Rassmann from the water.


"John Kerry's stories are falling apart," added Hoffmann. His statements don't even match up with his own journal entries.  We are going to continue telling the truth about John Kerry's military service record so that the American people can make their own decisions about John Kerry's qualifications to be the next Commander in Chief."




Lecture Notes:  08-22-04


“ . . . it is . . . regrettable . . .” --- Thomas Patrick Carroll, former CIA Case Officer,--- KSFO radio


It reminds me of the time the CIA asked me to help them---


Counselor: Shhh,  you are on.


Ah, yes, well, perhaps we should talk about that later. . . .


“Wild eyed.”  That’s what they are calling him.  “Losing it.”  That’s what they are saying about him.  But to our visitors here at New Ruskin College,  all of these developments will come as no surprise. 


College visitors will already have seen how reckless Mr. J. F. F. Kerry is.  They will have seen him first back out on the Imus show when we first exposed Imus’ involvement with the organized oppression, (see Imus Protests top left of this page),  for the . . . what is it now?  12 years since I first published the Last Letter. (see Last Letter Archive at the Moynihan)


But Kerry then went on the Imus show anyway.  And then he went on a second time even after we published the letter to the F. C. C.,  (see e-mail Archive Out Box at the Moynihan), which was never actually sent.


Counselor:  You never sent it?


How could I without evidence?


The absurdity of the situation is that you have organizations, “News” organizations like, oh, for example, ABC News, and not just the local station, KGO, with that crew, Rosie Allen, Ted Baxter ---


Counselor: Ed.




Counselor:  His name is Ed.  Ed Baxter.


Oh, that’s what I said----


Counselor: No, you said Ted.


Well, it was a mistake, look I’ll change---


Counselor: It wasn’t a mistake.  You do that deliberately.  You know it drives him crazy and you purposely do it.


It was a mistake.  Ted.  I mean Ed.  You know I must be getting him confused with that other unctuous, obnoxious, sycophantic, boor of a “News Caster” on the old Mary Tyler More Show,  that Ted Baxter.


Counselor:  And you are not?


Thank you Yvonne.


Counselor:  You are welcome.


Not just their local station but the entire ABC News division  (see e-mail Archive Out Box at the Moynihan) has been here to this site.  And  And  (Michael Weiner thought they were a German news agency.)


Counselor:  And don’t forget WebTV.


Yes, dear, and WebTV too.  A great many of you know about Imus et. al., and their 12 years of harassment,  and you know that when Kerry, a candidate for the office of President of the United States, goes on that show he also knows, and he knows about the nature of the show, and he knows too what a degenerate Don Imus is.  For example, Don Imus has repeatedly advocated the use of nuclear weapons in the Second Gulf War.  He is against the war.  Contradiction?   When the New York Times contacted Imus for clarification his explanation was,  “We are not the NewsHour.”


But Kerry, (like Clinton?), is a risk taker.  Going on the Don Imus air is just one small risk.


But just as the ABC News division knows but will not report on how its local station, KGO, and its employees, have used their positions of power to oppress and harasse me for these 12 long years, so too, ABC will not report on Kerry’s risky decision to go on the Don Imus show.  Admittedly not much of a risk, if everyone stays silent, but still, some risk that his campaign might get mixed-up in a F. C. C. investigation during a close election.


Senator Hatch:  “I’ve heard what you do to some of your listeners.”


Why take any risk?  Why go on the Don Imus show?


And here you have it.


Just because you are only now learning about all of this:  the questions about the three, (three and you are out), Purple Hearts, or the searing memory of Christmas Day in Cambodia, with Richard Nixon on the radio telling lies, doesn’t mean that Mr. J. F. F. Kerry was unaware of the controversy.   


 Now, looking back, the supporters of the Swift Boat Veterans say, ‘See what a show he made about his service in Vi-et-nam, that is why we are justified in going over all of this,  etc., etc.’


But this is just backwards isn’t it? 


Kerry made his service the center of his campaign because he knew that the controversy would soon over take him.  He knew Mr. O’Neil was writing a book.  That the Swiftees were organizing.  (For example, just cast your mind back over the intel. operation that has been done on me.  And I’m just a scribbler.  If this is the kind of thing that is done to someone who writes a few letters to the Senate think about what they do to people who really get involved in politics.)


And yet the supporters of the Swift Boat Veterans know that now Kerry can not very well say, ‘Look, the reason I tried to play up my service was so I could try to overcome this storm that I knew was coming.’


So both sides are locked into this falsity, and the news media will not report on it.  Kerry took the risk of playing up his record, even sailing over to the convention on a boat with “his vets” to try and prepare for the coming onslaught.  He could have said, ‘I disagreed with the war, there was this option if you got three Purple Hearts and you can get out so I availed myself of the rules.’  And this attitude would have fitted much better with his subsequent anti war speeches and going to Paris two times.  Going to Paris?  Two times!  (Not enough to oppose the war, one must also carry the flag of the North Vietnamese.)    


One of the risks of his high profile super patriot role, “reporting for duty,” is that his own maneuvering can now be used against him.  His opponents say:  ‘We are only responding to him.’  Or, ‘He is the one that made it an issue.’


And the beauty part is that Kerry can’t say the truth, that he was only preparing for the storm of criticism he knew was coming.


And think of all those who read their newspapers and watch their news casts and will never fathom what really is going one.  People of otherwise normal intelligence, millions of them, will be arguing:  ‘Well he made Vi-et-nam an issue. . . .’


All the subtlety of the situation, not to say duplicity, will be lost on them.


For not only did Kerry know about the coming controversy, so did many Democrats.  They did not care that a Naval Officer, while serving, would not only protest the war but would go to Paris.   Go to Paris?!  They did not care before nor do they now.  What concerns them is the “marginal voter.”  In Ohio.  In Florida.  The battle ground states as we call them.  The “marginal voter” may care that the U. S. Constitution bars anyone who while an officer of the armed forces gives aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war.  This is the only extent to which the controversy is understood by them:  What will the marginal voter think?


ABC News knew about the Swift Boat Veterans, but failed to report on the coming controversy.  And even now, when forced to report something does so only grudgingly and always from the perspective of what is best for liberal Democrats.  And all of this behavior is duplicitous.  But this also comes as no surprise to the visitors of this web site.  For example, employees of ABC News, KGO, thought the burglary at the Colonial Motel and the theft of the notebook by Michael Weiner, (a one time employee of KGO ABC), was good fun, and Ed Wygant and Jim Dunber, and Ted Baxter, I mean Ed Baxter, Rosie Allen all KGO employees, all of them thought it a good joke.


But Rosie Allen, what would the marginal voters of Ohio think?


And so we here at New Ruskin College watch as you stumble like the blind bumping into things, reaching out into the dark, lost.


You believe in, act on, some of the most unbelievable propositions.  Hopeless.


Bill O’Reilly actually said, “What happened in Vietnam does not matter.”  Does not matter?  Millions of lives lost.  Does not matter?   That is not what we were told at the time.  Is this what you will say to us forty years on about Iraq.  Does not matter?


William F. Buckley, Jr., and Dr. George Will actually said that if they knew then what they know now they would not have supported our troops liberating Iraq.  These what if questions are a waste of time unless there is a heuristic point to be made.  What is their point?  Only that they, William F. Buckley, Jr. and Dr. George Will, would have decided differently.  Celebrity reasoning.  They want us to know how they would have thought, to know about their puny psychology.


What do they know now that they did not know then?  The bio weapons are still missing.  But I explained before the war that they are too portable to reasonably hope to catch them with an invasion.  So what then, the chemical weapons?  They went to war for chemical weapons? Really?  Nuclear?  But they were told before the war that the Iraqis were trying to acquire yellow cake which is only a raw material.  This indicated a program that was just beginning not one that was approaching completion. 


So what is there that is new?  More evidence of state sponsorship of terror?  More evidence of bio weapons programs?  More evidence of  the brutality of the old regime? 


What then?  Why would Will and Buckley lend their names to the chorus that the Second Gulf War was a “mistake?”  Leave aside that men laid down their lives for us.  What is the heuristic point they are making?  It can not just be that we did not know one thing or another for in practice there will always be the unknown.  What in particular is it that we should learn from their “what if” counter factual, “if we knew then . . .”  what?


Nothing.   They have no larger point that they are trying to make.  Just two celebrities, who want us to know that they have changed their minds, no, not even that, just that they would have been against the war then, if they knew then, what they know now.  A point that is childish. And for what?  Because the bio weapons are missing?  A point I made before the war, was most probable.


And this same George Will often made comments about the letters. (see Math Project Archives and New Ruskin College Project Archives at the Moynihan)  Both Will and Moynihan made repeated references to them.  And we are confident that he has visited the site, though he has not recently made reference to it. From his place at ABC News it is almost certain that he has information about what has been done to me.  Yet he is silent.


Oh, he will keep us informed about his changing psychological states of mind on the Second Gulf War, but as for the truth . . . that is something else. 


During one Foreign Relations Committee meeting, during the opening statements, several Senators, one right after the other, made references to the Math Project Letters.  Finally, it was Senator Kerry’s turn,  he looked around at his colleagues, clearly having understood their references for he had himself read the letter and said,  “What are we saying here, we have some affirmative duty to illume . . .”


From the Math Project motto, which itself came from the line:  “. . . to kindle, to burn, to illume.”


But it appears to me that you are all still in the dark.


Counselor:  To burn, to kindle, to illume.




Counselor:  A second sun array’d in flame,/ To burn, to kindle, to illume.


. . . Yvonne, . . .


Counselor:  Yes?


Thank you. . .


Counselor:  You are welcome.




Lecture Notes:  08-12-04   Silence


For example most of you have acquiesced in silence not because of your egotism but simply to avoid “trouble.”  But do you think they are appreciative that you are subservient?  They are not appreciative.  You are playing into their egotism, feeding it.  Your submission only confirms their low opinion and worst fears.  This is what most of you do not understand.  In your cooperation with Michael Weiner, and Ron Owens, etc., your cover up of the burglary, all of it, you are in your own small way reenacting the NAZI persecution, 1933 to 1938.  This includes the subversion and corruption  of the police.  You resurrect their worst fears.  


There were some Germans who asked publicly, like Gene Burns, “When will we say enough is enough?” (Wann sagen wir genug sind genug?)  Even as late as 1938 some continued to resist.


But most did not.  The Weimar Republic was destroyed before the NAZIS took over the state.  The political culture was destroyed by millions of small acts of cowardice.  Do you want to keep your job?  Is that why you do not give evidence?  So now you know what it was like being a German.


 Rosie Allen:  “Well, I don’t want to get shot.” 


See Rosie Allen, now you know what it was like to be a German.  You know what is happening but you do not dare  speak up against it.  You are not acting out of  egotism, but fear.  However, you are feeding their egotism.


Yvonne knew it was wrong to betray her client.  And her “friends” at KQED, they also knew it was wrong.  That is why they lied.   That is just the point.  Of course it is wrong.  Isn’t it delightful.  This is how it was for the NAZIS.  Do you suppose they all talked about the “international Jewish conspiracy?”  It really did not matter to most of them, it was just “theory.”   They were told that it was ok to hate these ones.  Fine, for whatever reason.  If reason were involved, for example, one could have shown that if Jews were capitalists and Jews were communists then obviously being a Jew was not determinative.  Not a “conspiracy” but an unimportant, independent, variable.  But we are not discussing reason, we are discussing egotism.  No one had to tell Scott Bobro the reasons why he should harasse me.  Who cares why?  He is not an intellectual.  Nor did it matter for the person on the phone asking him how “it” went?  Just a goy, who cares why?  (see Intel Operations No. 8)


There is no question of argumentation, or logic.  No reason at all.  Do you suppose that you could have a long discussion with Scott Bobro and discover why he harassed me at Farmers and that by persuasion he could be brought around to understand that he was wrong?  He knows he was wrong.  That is what he was trying to accomplish.  He just went too far.  He was clumsy.  Frank Blaha at GAB Robins is another example.    Being wrong is part of the fun of the thing.  It feeds their egos.


Michael Weiner and Ron Owens are egotists, of course, they are entertainers.  Both have used the Holocaust to justify their misconduct.  (Owens more cagily than Weiner, but it was not just coincidence that he spoke of his dead grandparents; killed in the Holocaust, every time I wrote to Yvonne about his treachery.(see Michael Weiner Holocaust Denier, Lecture Notes: 07-10-04))


 But their Holocaust is not the historical Holocaust.  Their Holocaust is a function of their egotism, their pride.  And your failure to denounce their use of the Holocaust, misuse of the Holocaust, your acquiescence to their egotistical use, misuse, of the Holocaust, encourages them in this  their self justifications.  Their egotism feeds off your submission.  


Nor is this use, denial, of the Holocaust an isolated, individual, occurrence.  It is international in scope and can be seen in the Middle East crisis.  There are settlers in Israel’s territories who speak about Palestinians the way Weiner does on his radio program.  (Much of Weiner’s material coming from a local radio program called Jew Boy Zionist Radio.)  They say Palestinians  are “dogs” that should be “shot” in the streets.  They are “Brooklyn thugs,”  to use Christopher Hitchens’ phrase to described them.  As Victor Frankl has explained the Holocaust can be used to justify fascist policies.


“If fascism ever comes to Britain it will come in the form of a billionaire preaching the Sermon on the Mount.” (Orwell)  The fascist uses what ever symbols that are at hand;  what ever symbols are believed.  The fascist is not an educator.  He is a manipulator.  The Holocaust is just another symbol;  another way of influencing and manipulating people’s emotions, thoughts.


No, your acquiescence does not reassure them.  It confirms there low opinion of you.  When Michael Weiner shouts out some obscenity about Moslems, the callers who express their concurrence only confirm his low opinion of his audience, for he knows they might as easily be talking about Jews.  Ron Owens’ fellow employees who help conceal the evidence of the stolen notebook do not reassure him, rather they alarm him.  He knows how all of this could be turned around.  His own paranoia is increased by the knowledge that he could just as easily be the target of your lies.


The extremist Israeli Brooklyn thugs are in agreement with the Palestinian terrorists.  For both violence is the preferred method of resolving differences.  Both claim God.  Both have examples of grievances, etc..  And for neither is reason a possibility.  For reason would require the subordination of their egos to reason, which for someone like Michael Weiner is an impossibility.  He is beyond reason. 


And acquiescence to either extremist will not win their confidence, just the opposite.  Yasser Arafat did not become more reasonable as more concessions were made.  Rather his opinion that he could bully his way was confirmed. As with Michael Weiner and Ron Owens, the more they realize the willingness of others to lie for them, the more their paranoia of just how untrustworthy the Gentile are is heightened, their worst nightmare confirmed.


This is why my Last Letter, where I denounced Yvonne and her “friends” at KQED, and compared their covert actions, their immoral conduct, to the same moral decline that lead to the demise of the Weimar Republic, so antagonized Ron Owens and Michael Weiner and Michael Krasney.   My argument was an insult to their vanity.  They knew it was wrong for Yvonne to betray her client.  That was not the point.  Of course it was wrong.  So what?  She is the daughter of Holocaust survivors.  If she can be subjected to  criticism what is the point of being a daughter of Holocaust survivors? 


More to the point what about a former disk jockey who only lost grandparents?  No, this has to stop here.  We can’t have some goy getting away with this.  And especially for Jews who have lost their faith, the Holocaust is the touch stone.  They may not have God, or faith, but there will always be Auschwitz.  And a daughter of survivors.  The Holy of Holies.   And like comic creations they bring to their task, their mock religion, the same sanctimony one associates with real religions.  The same absolutist commitment one expects from the religious.  Pure egotism.  


And their persecution has spanned 12 years now.  Protected by your silence.  Fed by your silence.


And all of this is but one aspect of Bay Area culture, America 2004. 


For example, because Ron Owens and I are White males we are said to be in the same “category.”  Our incomes are averaged together to report White male income.  Every year the liberals in the newsrooms all across America will run the stories about Women only earning .73 cents for every White male dollar of income.  Everyone knows it is a lie.


Similar lies are promulgated to justify Blacks in their hatred of  White males, etc.


And what of the $500 million being spent on the redesigned Bay Bridge to make it pretty?  Oh, without comment the price has been raised  $1.4 billion.  The elite wants towers and cables, not just decorative towers and cables either, but real ones.  The Bay Area elite proposes to take an additional $1.4 billion from the people and there is no objection, no review, no discussion.   


Our elite wants a pretty bridge.  Silence.


Women only earn .73 cents for every dollar White males earn.  Silence.


Ron Owens and Michael Weiner and Michael Krasney, etc.  ?  Silence.





Lecture Notes:  08-11-04


No one will come forward and give evidence.  Many have visited.  The IRS visited six times in one week.  Sodos and Bobro checked in.  Imus and Weiner also.  Imus even said in one show, “What can happen . . . I mean if no one says anything?”  Watching and waiting.  Like Michael Krasney waiting on the phone, “OK, he’s off the line I can put you through  . . .”  Contemptible.


What can I do?  One against so many?  I wrote the Last Letter in 1992.  I did not set up this website until 2003, only after it became clear that Imus had gotten some contact at GAB Robins.  (see Psy Ops)


For 11 years one after another, Ron Owens, Michael Weiner, Michael Krasney, and many others, (the IRS under the Clinton regime), I tried to ignore them but they just would not leave me alone.


For example, I was at my sister’s home (1992) and commented that “The mass media is a hydra headed monster.”  The following Friday a fat balding reporter for the Sacramento Bee repeated the line.  What have you all wanted?


Glee?  A thrill?  Just wanted to prove that if a large number of people work together to destroy another human being they can succeed?  Was it ever in doubt?


In all of this there is nothing unusual, nothing out of the ordinary.  This is how you live your lives.  You have been mistaken.  Wrong.  You should not have done these things to me.  Others of you, should have intervened;  you should have at least given evidence.  Testify. 


But this failing, this mistake, this is you, this is how you live your whole lives. 


This is how you go through the entirety of your lives. One misperception, misapprehension, after another, followed by a misjudgment, a misconstruction of what you are seeing, what you are experiencing.  Then your subsequent actions which flow from these errors lead to mistakes and missteps and finally the process concludes with the inevitable misinterpretation of the results of your missteps, leading to a new round of mistakes and wrongful conduct.


You are worse than lost.  If you were simply lost there would be a chance that you would find the pole star, you might note on which side of the trees the moss is growing, etc.  But unfortunately you are not simply lost, you have a map.  You think you do know what you are doing. 


You have harassed and chased me from one work place to another.  I could not even have a quite conversation with my sister without some jackass on the TV making a comment.  The break in at the Colonial Motel.  The months of the police following me.  Even now when they pass by they sound their sirens to let me know they are waiting.  Waiting for what?  What is the point of all of this harassment?


There is no point, no objective.  This is simply the beast you are.


I only regret that I will not be present when you get yours.  But I have every confidence now that I know what it will be like for you.  The bed clothes plastered tightly to your sweat soaked skin.  Open sores. 


Or not. If you live a good long life it will end the same way.  Haven’t you realized yet that you have already died many times?  Do you remember that person you were when you were 12?  That person died a long time ago.  You must have sensed this?  You are dieing in every moment.   A thousand years, a thousand million years, from now, who cares? 


An end in every breath.  And just as well too.  An end also to all your ignorance?  It will not last much longer. 


Seeing how momentary life is, it is precious, just because it is so ephemeral. 


Wouldn’t you like to see the world once before you die?  Why wait one moment longer?  


From here you can see out all across the sound, this is the view, look out to the very edge of the horizon, or right up close . . .


For a few years I did continue to write to Yvonne.  She never responded.  Often others would make references to these letters.  Ron Owens never failed to reply.  His explanation for his conduct was always the same, “I had relatives who died in the Holocaust.” 


Now which word in that sentence do you think Ron Owens most emphasized?  Died?  Holocaust?  Relatives?  No, no, no:  “I”.  What was significant for Ron Owens was not that they died, in the Holocaust or even that they were his relatives.  No, what was important was that they were Ron Owens’.  


Egotism.  For the egotist the Holocaust is a straight shot right to the ego. 


Why did he arrange for the homosexual to harasse me in the gym?  He went on the air with his advice about how to handle homosexual’s harassment the very next day.  Then I wrote Yvonne a week later and mentioned the incident, and Owens was on the air about his relatives  who died in the Holocaust.  Then a month or so later after I wrote Yvonne about the incident at the courier office, (see Dear Yvonne Archive), he went back on the air the very next day mentioning his relatives.  Emphasis on his.  This is his excuse.



But what if he is wrong.  What if he has misinterpreted History?  What if he is acting on a series of mistaken beliefs?  For example, Ron Owens:  What was the date of Kristallnacht?  Ok, so you do not know the date.  Was it  early or late in the Hitler regime?  Why would this be significant?  You have to know some of these things if you are going to have an opinion, especially if you are going to use that opinion to justify your harassment of a fellow human being, so many decades later.  If you are going to guide your lives by your maps of the world you have to know how to read them.  November 9-10, 1938.  7,500 stores were destroyed. 


1938!  A year before the beginning of the war.  Do you understand what this means? Hitler’s willing executioners?   How many boycotts had been established?  How many Brown Shirts stood in front of how many stores handing out how many flyers for how many years?  More to the point how many of Hitler’s willing executioners  brushed past how many Brown Shirts?  How many ordinary Gentiles defied the boycotts?  Is Kristallnacht evidence of German anti Semitism or, given that it was November 1938, is it not itself evidence of the failure of NAZI policies?  The persistence of the human spirit? 


After how many years of NAZI rule, did ordinary “willing executioners” continue to shop at Jewish stores, in open defiance of state organized boycotts?  (Why did the Brown Shirts change into civilian clothes to vandalize the stores?)


Here we are looking all the way to the horizon as far as we can see.  If you are going to navigate around the world  on your assumptions shouldn’t you double check to see if your assumptions conform to reality?  Instead of insinuating your relatives deaths as a justification for your covert actions, using your dead grandparents to justify your misconduct, shouldn’t you be willing to stand up like a man, and debate honestly?


Your cowardice prevents you, Ron Owens, from discussing your false assumptions.  But the errors, the mistakes, the egotistical contrivances, that you use to justify your misconduct, all of this is simple error.  You are mistaken.  You do not understand what has happened.  Or what is happening now. So all your explanations are merely excuses, chosen not by reason but by your ego to flatter your vanity.  You are lost.   


Attacking me will not correct your misunderstanding anymore than the ADL’s attempt to block the publication of A Nation on Trial, could improve our understanding of history.


But because Yvonne is the daughter of Holocaust survivors, Ron Owens’ egotism caused him to think that he was justified in harassing me because I dared to criticize her conduct and that of her “friends” at KQED.  (I did not then know about Ron Owens’ involvement and that of KGO, (though she had told me that she knew Ron Owens.))  Because you are not as cracked as Michael Weiner, though like all entertainers your egos are out of all control, you will not deliver a tirade, as he did,  about the “Jewish children killed in the Holocaust,” snorting up the Holocaust right into your ego, to justify yourself.  (see Lecture Notes:  07-10-04 Michael Weiner Holocaust Denier)  


No, Ron Owens is more subtle than that.  You insinuate the corpses of your dead grandparents with offhand references, always indirect, leaving yourself an escape route should the lights be turned on.  But Ron Owens you are mistaken.  This is not about the Holocaust this is about Ron Owens’ ego.  Your claim of anti Semitism is just your excuse.  You are not fighting the NAZIS you are a NAZI.  Like the Brown Shirts you have changed into civilian clothes, (Hawaiian shirts).  This is how the Weimar Republic was destroyed, from the inside, by mistaken, misguided, people like Ron Owens.  Egomaniacal people in positions of power who chose to betray the law. 


And even so, the Republic survived from 1919 to 1933.  And even after the NAZI’s took control of the state “ordinary executioners” continued to shop at  Jewish shops in open defiance of the NAZIS.  In the end people like Ron Owens finally brought down the Republic.  No one of us can stand up to such an onslaught indefinitely.  In time the worms are victorious over the lion.  This is why I say that we are all citizens of Weimar.  We each of us depend on our community, the bonds of affection, intellectual honesty, we trust in good faith.  


But this misinterpretation of History, (with a capital H), is only part of the view from here.  Vanity, egotism, are not always mixed in so thoroughly. 


For example, . . . to be continued . . .





Lecture Notes:  08-10-04

"Two senior Pakistani officials said the reports in "Western media" enabled other al-Qaeda suspects to get away.

"Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some al-Qaeda suspects ran away," one of the officials said on condition of anonymity.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice acknowledged Sunday that Khan's name had been disclosed to reporters in Washington "on background," meaning that it could be published, but the information could not be attributed by name to the official who had revealed it.

The Pakistani officials said that after Khan's arrest, other al-Qaeda suspects abruptly changed their hide-outs and moved to unknown places.

The first official described the publication of the news of Khan's arrest as "very disturbing."

"We have checked. No Pakistani official made this intelligence leak," he said.

Without naming any country, he said it was the responsibility of "coalition partners" to examine how a foreign journalist was able to have an access to the "classified information" about Khan's arrest.

The official refused to comment whether any U.S. official was responsible for the leak.

On Monday, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., asked the White House to explain why the name of Khan was revealed."---- U. S. Tody  08-10-04



Lecture Notes:  08-07-04    


Burned.  (Not the first time the USA has burned a source.)


“Security experts contacted by Reuters said they were shocked by the revelations that the source whose information led to the alert was identified within days, and that U.S. officials had confirmed his name.


“ ‘The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse," said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane's Defense publications. "You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place?


“ ‘It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It's not exactly cloak and dagger undercover work if it's on the front pages every time there's a development, is it?"


“A source such as Khan -- cooperating with the authorities while staying in active contact with trusting al Qaeda agents -- would be among the most prized assets imaginable, he said.

“ ‘Running agents within a terrorist organization is the Holy Grail of intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback which negates months and years of work, which may be difficult to recover."


“ Rolf Tophoven, head of the Institute for Terrorism Research and Security Policy in Essen, Germany, said allowing Khan's name to become public was "very unclever."

"If it is correct, then I would say its another debacle of the American intelligence community. Maybe other serious sources could have been detected or guys could have been captured in the future" if Khan's identity had been protected, he said.”--- Reuters, 08-07-04


“ . . . incompetence or worse.”  Or worse?  


I think we need to start considering what the “or worse” could be.


I also cooperated with the United States in an investigation.  And I also was burned by the United States.  (see IRS and the Illegals from the North.)


Or worse?





Psy Ops  Eight :  08-07-04


So now the San Rafael Police have dispensed with using their junkies as intermediaries,  and have now returned to doing their own harassment.  Now when ever they drive by me,  they sound their siren,  just a little shot.  Their way of saying hello?


And if the incredulous reader is thinking, ‘Oh, no, they wouldn’t still go on with it . . . that this continuing harassment is a tacit admission that it is all true!  The burglary at the Colonial Motel,  giving the stolen notebook to Michael Weiner, (or the ADL who gave it to Weiner), the follow up harassment, the unlawful detention and search, the harassment by Officer Agustus, all of it, they are admitting, by their conduct, they are admitting that it is all true,’  ---  if the reader is thinking this then the reader is correct.  It is all true.


But what the reader still does not appreciate is that the San Rafael Police Department does not give a damn what the reader thinks.  To hell with you, and your stinking civil rights, and,  and, what?  The rule of law?  Give me a break.


Isn’t it yet clear to you?  There is no law.  Or rather, they have the guns, they are the law. 


Do you think they are ashamed to act so wrongfully?  Is Michael Krasney ( of KQED, see Lecture Notes:  08-03-04  The Truth) ashamed to have been exposed for the small minded fraud that he is?  He is proud of his harassment.  This is part of what it means to be post liberal. 


Wrongful conduct?  How bourgeois!  Law?  Bash!  The Law is for suckers.  Get with it. 


Welcome to the Bay Area, the post liberal Bay Area.     




Counselor:  So Sidney is a stand up guy for you?


Please don’t do that.


Counselor:  I’m just saying that who is it that is there for you?


Yvonne . . .


Counselor:  I know that you think we do not have a social conscience . . . but who is it that is there for you,  do you see?


My God woman, where is this coming from?  What deep seated antagonism is this  . . . can’t you see that this is a projection?  What must you think of me? ---


Counselor:  I know, I know, but when it comes right down to it who is there for you?   The Jew?


Please stop it . . .


Counselor:  I’m just saying Sidney was there for you, did you see?  And Imus has to take it off the air to run some old interview.  I’m telling you . . . Sid was there fighting for air time for you . . . and for a goy at that,  just think about that.


I’m begging you, please stop . . .


Counselor:  Well ok but remember Sid Rosenberg, he was there for you . . .


I just can’t . . . I just . . .  what must you think of me . . .  please stop . . . Yvonne my dear . . .


Counselor:  Remember Sid Rosenberg.





Lecture Notes:  08-03-04


The Truth


We have in the past dealt with many forms of corruption.  We have discussed corruption in high office, ( for example, the failure to heed the warnings of the IDF that high jacked airliners could be flown into office blocks),  and in small things, (see Psy Ops One Two and Three).


Yet in all of our discussions I have felt a strange detachment.  As if you heard, or read my words, but failed to comprehend them.  It is, I am at last sure now, not a question of disbelief.  For example, Rosie Allen and Gene Burns actually did comment on the stolen notebook and the San Rafael Police were actually following me;  and they really did call me “the Colonial Motel Suspect,” on their police radios.  Many KGO employees have indicated their knowledge of the stolen notebook.  (See Intel Operations)


Mrs. Jack Swanson actually did receive the Cen Cal Letters and comment on them on her radio program.   Don Imus actually did . . . well you got it; you know the truth of the things that have been alleged here.  Some of you know the truth because you are actually the ones who have done the harassment.  (For example, Michael Weiner followed me all the way to Berkeley one morning in 2003.)


However, not withstanding this knowledge of the truth, for some reason the corruption fails to register on your consciousness?  Why?  Is this, your failure to act, not itself the sign and proof of your degeneracy?


Do you not think, for example, that people are being sent to prison based in part on the testimony of San Rafael Police Officers?  There are real people going into real prison cells, doing real time, because of the evidence of the San Rafael Police.  Yet you know that the San Rafael Police lied when it denied it had any information on the “Colonial Motel Suspect” in response to the Freedom of Information Request by my attorney. 


When Officer Agustus (see Psy Ops number Three) shouted angrily that “it is not all about you,”  he certainly was right.  Partly it is about the integrity of the San Rafael Police, but in a larger sense it is about you, visitors to this website.  It is about your knowledge of these things.  It is about your failure to act.


This failure to act is the degeneracy.  Here in the Bay Area you see, it is a living example, a laboratory experiment, of what happens to a society when it is submerged into degeneracy.  The 70,000 shortfall in houses to jobs in San Francisco is the proof of the degeneracy.    The average home in the Bay Area requires an income of $150,000 a year several multiples of the average Bay Area income. The failure, the inability, the unwillingness, to build houses is the degeneracy.


Has the oligarchic elite acted on the this housing crises?  (Has the reader acted on what he has read here?)  No, of course, our elite has done nothing.  Yet the Oakland San Francisco Bay Bridge was redesigned to look like a suspension bridge for an added $500 million.  Our elite thought changing the design would make it look pretty. 


This is the view.  We can look at things in the far distance, the failure to secure the borders, or at things in the middle distance, the housing crises in the Bay Area, or we can look at things close up in the foreground . . .


When I was at the AAA auto club in a room the size of an aircraft hanger, filled with 250 adjusters, to my right, on the other side of the high partition, sat Johnson, a young black man from Oakland, who mysteriously left for Texas.  As the claims section temporary I was tasked with taking his voice mail messages.  One of the messages was from his probation officer.  I called the Alameda Probation Office back:  ‘Where is Johnson?’


I answered:  We do not know, we heard he was going to Texas. 


Texas?’  Was the reply,  ‘I didn’t give him permission to go to Texas.  Oh, my, ok thank you.’


Behind me, on the other side of the low partition, sat Colleen Jackson, who was missing her front teeth.  A large white woman in her late thirties but she looked to be in her fifties.  Colleen was looking forward to the release of her husband from “the Q.”  (San Quinton.)  She was complaining to a colleague that one of her husbands “friends” was staying with her but his drug use and all night partying were making her normal routine difficult.  Across from me was Jack Dingby, a former police officer, a man in his late thirties. 


And who is waiting on the phone for me?  Out of 250 adjusters? Who was calling on a file not assigned to this claim section? 


Mr. Michael Krasney?  Would you like to explain who was calling me?  Professor?  Would you like to explain how the former Mrs. Dr. Dean Edel, Rose Guilbault, Vice President of Public Affairs for the AAA, arranged for that call to be routed to my phone?


Or perhaps Rose Guilbault, a former KGO employee, would care to answer for Mr. Krasney, who is himself  also a former KGO employee.  Can you explain why I was let go a few days later?  There were millions of dollars in unpaid medical bills at AAA.  Thousands of unanswered phone calls at AAA.  Plenty of work at AAA.  Was it a budget problem? 


If the reader thinks that we have strayed from our subject, corruption, degeneracy, think again.


Mr. Michael Krasney, professor and KQED radio talk show host, and Rose Guilbault are both perfect examples of the Marin County, post liberal Bay Area Elite.  Mr. Krasney no doubt objected to my protests in front of KQED. (see Last Letter Archive)  Both liberal Democrats, they perhaps disagreed with the political views expressed.  Perhaps Mr. Krasney, like Ron Owens and Michael Weiner, had some particular reason to object to my criticism of Yvonne [deletion], the daughter of Holocaust survivors?  Perhaps Mr. Krasney and Ron Owens were among the “friends” of Yvonne who persuaded her to betray her client in the first place? 


Reflect, dear reader, that the AAA is a “non profit” organization.  Ms. Guilbault is not answerable to any shareholders.  Like all “non profits” it is controlled by a small group of powerful people whose power arises not because they were elected, not because they are meeting the needs of the market place, no, rather their power is secured because they control the organization.  And KQED?  Another “non profit.”  How is it that one becomes a “vice president of ‘public affairs’”?  Contacts?  Influence?  And Mr. Krasney?  Do ratings drive his “performance”?


As we have reported, (see Lecture Notes June and July), the Bay Area elite has taken control of the levers of power, and exert their influence not for “liberal” policies, as many simple minded entertainment conservatives (like Rush Limbaugh) contend.  They are post liberal.  When Senator Boxer, (another Marin County resident), claims that she supports tightening border controls, does anyone take her seriously?  How would she find gardeners for her Marin home?  (Did you provide Social Security payments for your illegals Senator Boxer?   Workers Comp?  Health benefits?  No?  Not very liberal.)


When Senator Feinstein down zoned San Francisco, five times before moving out to Marin, did she do so for liberal reasons?  She bought multi story buildings then prevented any competition by down zoning her neighbors. Oligarchy. The building codes were also changed so that building affordable housing was made illegal. As the middle class was forced out by the oligarchic control of the apparatus of the state, the Bay Area elite has sought to replace the lost citizens with helots, illegals, who can be deported at will, and to whom no rights need be extended.    Is this liberalism? Or is it corruption?  Degeneracy?   And note the same disconnect.  Just as the reader may know the truth about what has been done to me, and yet does nothing, so too the Bay Area knows the truth about the manipulation of the power of the state to dominate and control the housing market, and again, nothing is done.


If you owned a business that dealt in the payment of  large sums, for example like those involved in claims settlements, would you hire a person with a criminal record?  Still on probation?  A woman waiting for her husband to get out of “the Q”?  For the Bay Area Elite not only would they hire such people they are positively preferred.  A corrupt elites needs an equally corrupt, powerless, servile class to serve it.  And what happens to the ordinary citizen who gets caught in the way of this oligarchic machine?  What could happen?  You needn’t look very far.  Look at today’s headlines:


You could ask Annette Stineman, 78, and Ivan Stineman, 85, what might happen.  But first you would have to piece them back together, starting with their heads.  Oh, and their teeth, which were hammered out of their severed heads by a Dean Witter employee,  Glenn Taylor Helzer and his brother Justin Helzer.  Glenn Helzer, was the stock broker for the Stinemans.  Dean Witter had recently set up a “discount” brokerage and hired  Helzer  to help the Stinemans as their investment adviser.  After beating and drugging the Stinemans the Helzer brothers forced  Ivan Stineman to write out a check for $100,000.


But how to cash it?  And here you have the perfect example of the corruption that is Marin County and the Bay Area generally.  They  persuaded Selina Bishop, then 22, the daughter of blues guitarist Elvin Bishop, to cash the check for them.  They then killed all three: the Stinemans, Selina, and then they killed two witnesses, Selina’s mother and a friend.


Question:  Why did Selina Bishop agree to deposit the check into her bank account?  (Don Imus?  Did you know Elvin Bishop?  Ever do a line with him?  Do you remember?)


Marin County values?  Bay Area values?  Why did Yvonne [deletion] listen to the likes of Ron Owens and Michael Krasney and betray her client?


So here you have all these elements.  While I am at AAA in Concord I get a call just before I am let go.  The Helzers, also in Concord, kidnap and kill five people, including Selina Bishop, of Marin County, after she paid them the $100,000.  Earlier, the San Rafael Police are following me and referring to me over their police radio as the “Colonial Motel Suspect.”   


Michael Weiner has been reading from the stolen notebook, the day after the burglary, that occurred at the Colonial Motel.  Mrs. Jack Swanson and Brian Wilson, (of the Beach Boys), also have been making references to the stolen notebook, the next Monday after the burglary.  While the San Rafael Police have been following me, Gene Burns asks Rosie Allen, “When will we say enough is enough?”  Rosie Allen says, “Well, I don’t want to get shot.”  Meanwhile  other employees also make references to the stolen notebook.


Then the AAA claims supervisor approves two $15,000 payments to two claimants and the adjuster Jackson calls her old man’s friend who has been staying in her apartment these last two months, doing drugs, and she meets with Johnson, the adjuster on parole.  They discuss the file and prepare the claim settlement checks.


Meanwhile Senators Feinstein and Boxer of Marin, Michael Krasney, Rose Guilbault, Michael Weiner, all also of Marin, Yvonne [deletion], also of Marin, is persuaded  to betray her client, the San Rafael Police, Marin, follow the “Colonial Motel Suspect,” then Salina Bishop, Marin, agrees to cash the $100,000 from the Stinemans, their bodies were thrown into the San Francisco Bay off of Marin, . . .


Counselor:  What?


To be continued . . .